FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Editors,

Please address this DISCUSS. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:18 PM
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport@tools.ietf.org;
radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport 

Discuss:
This Discuss is related to Tim's Discuss.  This text:

   "Bare" TCP transport MAY, however, be used when another method such
   as IPSec [RFC4301] is used to provide additional confidentiality and
   security.  Should experience show that such deployments are useful,
   this specification could be moved to standards track.
 
is confusing.  Why would experience with "bare" TCP or IPSec TCP cause
draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport to progress to Standards Track?

Similarly, from the Abstract:

   It [draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport-06.txt] is not intended
   to define TCP as a transport protocol for RADIUS in the absence of
   TLS.

while several of the motivations for RADIUS over TCP in section 1.1 are
not specific to RADIUS with TLS.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>